Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ospedaletto Lodigiano derailment

I've created the Ospedaletto Lodigiano derailment article. Not sure that I've got the correct Frecciarossa train as there are apparently two versions. Assistance appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The Guardian has a picture which looks like a Frecciarossa 1000. Certes (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This image shows what is presumably the rear locomotive. Is the "21" on the nose the unit number? Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

split kaiping colliery and PMR

I have made a proposal regarding spliting the Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China at Talk:Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China#suggestion for split. I'd like to hear your views on it.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A Template discussion you might be interested in

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 20#Template:Infobox German railway vehicle, it is proposed to merge Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Color check requested

I created Template:East Midlands Railway colour as it was a wanted template with 39 inbound links.

I cribbed from the color template of the defunct operator it replaced, Template:East Midlands Trains colour, and from the page East Midlands Railway. Please make any necessary corrections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Color check requested - Stockholm

I created Template:Stockholmståg color using the color at Public transport in Stockholm#Suburban rail

There is a different color used at Stockholm commuter rail#Lines.

Can someone take a look at it and correct it if needed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Apple/Google maps uses dark blue, while Stockholm's official map uses pink. Cards84664 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Pink it is then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Naming of French stations

Are there guidelines for how to name articles on French railway stations? There seem to be several different methods: sometimes just the name (Châtelet–Les Halles), sometimes with a 'Gare/Gare de' prefix (Gare Saint-Lazare, Gare de Groslay), sometimes with a 'station' suffix (Montreuil station), sometimes with a 'railway station' suffix (Les Coquetiers railway station), sometimes with a bracketed suffix (Marly-le-Roi (SNCF)). An endash - inconsistently spaced or unspaced - is often used to indicate a station which serves two locations (Gare de Mitry–Claye or Gare de Massy – Palaiseau), but this doesn't always match the French wikipedia (fr:Gare de Mitry - Claye). We sometimes - probably incorrectly - use endashes for stations within a city (e.g. Gare de Versailles–Chantiers), but fr has Gare de Versailles-Chantiers (and for these the Transilien and SNCF, on their websites, just use a space (Versailles Chantiers (Transilien), Versailles Chantiers (SNCF)}. But that's not universal either - e.g. we have Gare de Vanves–Malakoff but Transilien has Vanves - Malakoff, which matches fr:Gare de Vanves - Malakoff. There's a 3-way inconsistency between Issy–Val de Seine station and fr:Gare d'Issy-Val de Seine and Issy Val de Seine (Transilien)]. The history of article Gare de Versailles–Chantiers shows the result of this apparent lack of an agreed standard - it's been renamed five times since 2014. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style/France and French-related articles#Stations insists on the Gare de Foo-Bar format, though I've never understood why. Certes (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That standard doesn't seem very thought-through. What about Gare Saint-Lazare or Gare Montparnasse?; and in the case of Gare de Asnières-sur-Seine it seems to have been taken too literally. It doesn't match, for example, the pattern of German stations, which are all named like Dortmund Möllerbrücke station (except for the Hauptbahnhof in each city) - a pattern also (mostly) used for Chinese stations, and also for Japanese stations except that 'Station' is capitalised - or Italian stations (e.g. Milano Bruzzano railway station) - the Italian pattern is used for Swiss and Spanish and Russian stations too. I get the feeling I've strayed into the Wild West in asking this question. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

{od}There is a further discussion of this issue, and the standard involved, here. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Southern Pacific 9010

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 18#Southern Pacific 9010, although this wasn't tagged on the article so you may not have seen it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Naming of Taiwan stations

I'm currently trying to fix formatting issues on Taiwan train stations and I can't help to notice the naming schemes for the articles. For example, Keelung railway station is named with "railway station". I have looked at the proposed guidelines here and the talk about the proposed guidelines here. I also noticed that there hasn't been talk since May 2019. Can I have some guidance on naming conventions on train stations?

Just some observations on this topic: Tamachi Station (Tokyo) is named with a capitalized Station while Gangnam station isn't. My understanding of this topic is that in Japanese, train station names are usually followed by 駅, so that's why there is capitalization in the English name since it's the proper name as per WP:NCCAPS with it saying "Tamachi Station" in English on the main sign. This contrasts with Gangnam station because there isn't any proper noun usage when referring to the station itself (the signs don't say Gangnam Station just Gangnam). TRA's own English signage on each station is followed by a capitalized "Station" with no railway attached at each main entrance (other than the Main station for the Taipei and Kaohsiung) while the Chinese signage is suffixed with 車站. By following the Japanese train station article naming convention shouldn't Keelung railway station be named "Keelung Station"? Harrison Kuo (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harrison Kuo: Taiwanese railway stations follow "Foo railway station" per a discussion back in 2017 (discussion here) in an effort to standardize the titles. Other countries that I know follow this format are the United Kingdom and China. As fas as I know, the reason why Japan follows a different format isn't because of the suffix (there are plenty of examples where 駅 isn't used, see here and here), but because it's always been this way: it's standardized and stable. Other countries have their own formatting as well. Ideally we would probably want to see that the entire world follows a naming convention, but for now, this will do. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (remember to ping!) 11:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Platform info error at Fullerton Transportation Center

I'm seeing an error with the the bottom with platform/track info at Fullerton Transportation Center and can't figure out how to fix it. Anyone with more experience with the template have an idea? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That template throws weird errors sometimes. I've replaced the large table with a few lines of (cited) prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Unknown line

I'm hoping someone will fix some recent errors.

Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has got something to do with this edit from yesterday. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, should be fixed now. Still getting the ropes of this template. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Photos of Tokyo Station

Recently I upload and take some photos of Tokyo Station in recent years and replace with the old one. However one of the users disagree with it and undo my edit. The current photos angles & perspective are not good and outdated (even without the outdoor plaza). But in Google search, most of the photos wide angle lens perspective to showing the surrounding environment of the Tokyo Station with the plaza view. --Wpcpey (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My edit

  • Tokyo Station, Marunouchi side (2019)
    Tokyo Station, Marunouchi side (2019)
  • Tokyo Station Outdoor plaza after renovation in 2018
    Tokyo Station Outdoor plaza after renovation in 2018

The Current edit

  • Tokyo Station, Marunouchi side
    Tokyo Station, Marunouchi side
  • Tokyo Station (after renovation)
    Tokyo Station (after renovation)
  • You should take the images in the daytime and then come back here, I think the night ones are cool but most people here prefer images to be taken in the daytime as you can see more of the building(s) and features, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Derp, I thought the daytime ones were current (ie not yours),
I prefer the current night time one as that's closer to the building,
Your daytime one IMHO looks better than the current one so I'd support that being added to the article,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Davey2010: I dunno, the top-down view definitely gives a more of an "overview" feeling since it conveys the scale of the station. It includes the iconic facade, subway entrance, and skyline in the back, which I feel is all valuable context for a first-impression picture. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Good point, Having checked the undone edit I wouldn't object to the current image remaining in the infobox and then new nightime one replacing this image in the article, Given how far away it is atleast for me I feel for the infobox the current one's better but sure wouldn't object to older image within the article being replaced, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Your daytime picture is definitely better than the current daytime one, so I've put it back in. I like the angle of your current nightime picture better than the current one, but the picture suffers from a lot of noise. Taking the picture from the same spot during the day would make the quality a lot better. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems under the COVID-19, many shopping centre in Tokyo are closed. We need someone to take the same angle picture with better camera.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on public transport

I invite project members to help expand Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on public transport.

Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP Trains technically-minded folks: A very small group of editors has been working to make errors related to short reference templates, like {{sfn}}, more visible. We are working to clean up a new error-tracking category, Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, which tracks instances of short-reference templates that do not link to full citations. There are something close to 400 train-related articles in the error category right now. Almost all of them are there because they contain an {{sfn}} template that refers to, but does not link to, a full citation. The solution varies based on whether the full citation is present, and whether the short and full citations are formatted such that they match each other. In some cases, the full citation is missing entirely because the short citation was copied from another article, but the full citation was not copied.

I am posting this message here because the error messages about short reference errors are not yet visible to all editors, and I thought you might want to tidy up the errors before they became visible, probably in a month or two. There are instructions on the category page about how to make the error messages visible to you.

There is a detailed explanation of the different types of errors (including a small number of false positives) and how to fix them at the category page linked above. For a list of articles containing the most common train-related infoboxes, try this petscan search. There is more discussion at Module talk:Footnotes, where you are welcome to post if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a bunch of broken references to Jowett 2000, typically in articles that have a Jowett 1989 source. It is unclear to me whether those references are intended to point to Jowett 1989, or to {{Jowett-Nationalised}}, which was published in 2000. Some investigation into the articles' history may be needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to delete redirects of the form "Template:0-902888-21-8" (name is ISBN only)

I am absolutely an interloper here, but I have been working on template- and reference-related errors in train articles recently. In my travels, I have noticed a number of template redirects of the form {{0-902888-21-8}}. These are typically ISBNs, and the redirects link to book-based source templates for train topics, in this case {{Whitehurst GW Engines from 1940}}.

Some of these redirects are used in articles, where they contrast negatively with the more helpful source templates that are typically based on the author's name and a brief hint at the book's topic. I find the ISBN-only templates opaque and unhelpful to readers and editors alike, but the experience of WP:Trains editors may be different. I nominated three of them for deletion here, and you are welcome to comment; I decided to come here to discuss before nominating more of them.

Would editors here be open to a mass nomination of these redirects for deletion? Existing instances of the ISBN-only templates in articles would be replaced by their editor-friendly targets. (Disclaimer: I don't yet know how to find all of these redirects, but I could work on that if editors here are open to replacement and deletion of them.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hello. Was just talking to someone who knows I edit Wikipedia, and they told me they'd come across two very similar lists of Glasgow subway stations: List of Glasgow Subway stations from 2017, and List of stations on the Glasgow Subway from 2019. Waaaay outside my area of competence, but hopefully someone here will be able to do whatever needs doing with them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Title missing from Sydney Railway Station references

@Marcnut1996:@Kerry Raymond:I was recently cleaning up another issue in some Sydney railway stations including Gordon railway station, Sydney when I noticed that some stations had an error message concerning missing titles from a reference which I corrected by adding the title without checking how effective the link [1] in reference 1 was Bureau of Transport Statistics. "Train Station Entries and Exits Data". Then in Marrickville railway station which I have not changed yet, I found a different URL in the reference [2] I then tried to decide which one would be the more effective and found that both lead to a page which does not provide the information but then links to various pages some of which are locked unless signed in and I think that applies to the page which contains the relevant information. I am looking for help as to what the URL should be in these references.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This URL is the better one to use as it goes to the right dataset, the second one just goes to a list of a datasets (including the one wanted). Yes, you need a login on the NSW Open Data to gain access to the URL. It is OK under WIkipedia's rules to cite resources that require a registered account, but you are supposed to indicate this with "|url-access=registration" (for a free registration as the NSW Open Data is). For more on this parameter, see {{Cite web#Subscription or registration required}} Kerry (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The succession box at the bottom of Manmad Junction railway station links to dab Summit railway station. {{s-line}} uses {{Indian Railways stations}}, which detects that we have no page Summit (Indian Railways station) (because the station has no article) and hopes that the page at the unqualified title is relevant. Would anyone like to suggest a fix? I suspect that there are other cases, probably leading to primary topic stations outside India rather than dabs, though it's hard to check until PetScan recovers. Certes (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PetScan is back (hurrah!) and surprisingly I can't find other cases. I feared lots of links to the likes of Wellington railway station vice Wellington railway station (Tamil Nadu). Perhaps in this case I should bend the rules and redirect Summit (Indian Railways station) to Bhusawal–Kalyan section, where it's listed in the route map? Certes (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added support for |state1/2= to {{Indian Railways stations}}. That seems like the least bad solution. Case closed. Certes (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Temporary service updates

I've noticed that the service patterns of many US station articles are being replaced by details of their current, temporarily reduced service. Is this desirable, or should I be politely reverting? Certes (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and we should not be changing thousands of articles with temporary service changes. (It's okay to note the changes on the articles about the services with a single cited sentence.) @C16sh: Please stop making these mass changes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Pi.1415926535. @C16sh: as you've been mentioned, please can I leave you to restore the old service patterns, and perhaps add a note about temporary changes (to summary articles rather than to every station article) if you have a reliable source and feel it has long-term significance? That might be better than me prying into your contribution history and possibly missing some or reverting unrelated changes. Certes (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say revert. Obviously most public transit services are facing significant disruption right now and adopting temporary service patterns. I think the station articles should reflect the normal state of affairs and disruptions documented in the service articles. For example, many of the state-supported Amtrak routes are suspended right now. That's probably worth a sentence. The New York City Subway will cease 24-hour service to allow for more cleaning. That's worth a paragraph somewhere. Cross-border service between Switzerland and Italy stopped for a while. There are many places to discuss that, but the station article for Domodossola probably isn't it. They'll just have to be changed back at some point. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, revert. If the coronavirus situation becomes a long-term issue resulting in routes being closed or altered for years, that will obviously be grounds to reconsider, but at the moment the situation is no different to a snowstorm or flooding temporarily affecting service, it just happens to be affecting a lot of places at once. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page about this but yes I will be updating what's been changed. Sorry for the confusion — C16SH (speak up) 22:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If this becomes long term it will obviously be something to reconsider (Tallahassee station is still "temporarily" closed following Hurricane Katrina and Barlaston railway station has been "closed for renovation" since 2004 but it would obviously be perverse to treat either as open), but at the moment the situation is no different than if a strike temporarily disrupted services for a few weeks. ‑ Iridescent 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Information isn't necessarily available, in any case. For example, in the UK, Heyford railway station and Tackley railway station are currently completely without service, but neither National Rail Enquiries nor Great Western Railway will tell you that directly - if you try to find train times to/from those stations, you get a disappointing message such as There are no trains running to your destination at the time you selected. Please try searching for a different time or day. or Sorry, there are no departures from Heyford in the next 2 hours. To find the next available service travelling from this station - Plan journey both of which imply that there will be trains, but later on; or perhaps you might be served this page, which is better in some ways, worse in others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
OpenTrainTimes may be more transparent for British stations. PASS denotes trains which run through non-stop, which you can filter out with the buttons top right. But I agree that this isn't the service pattern we should be showing. Certes (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that many station articles need to also be scrubbed of their normal service information, since it can rot quickly without maintenance. Things like first/last trips, bus route numbers (but not the general destinations served), and general information that covers the entire line/system need to be omitted. Frequency and general hours of operation would be much more useful to keep. SounderBruce 18:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

City of Memphis (train)

This article recently had a new map added: {{City of Memphis (train)}} created by Wof2500. The article has a hidden error: 'Lua error: expandTemplate: template "Green color" does not exist' and previewing an edit of the template shows Template:Green color (a red link). I think "Green" should be replaced in the template wikitext with a code appropriate for this train, and I'm hoping knows how to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming of Philippine stations

Naming conventions for stations in the Philippines are being discussed at Talk:Tutuban station (PNR)#Requested move 12 May 2020. Certes (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

TGV inOui instead of normal TGV train services

Over the past couple of years, the SNCF has been replacing traditional TGV train services with new TGV inOui services. There's a couple reasons behind this, but you can read more here. As most of the current english language stations in france display the traditional tgv services, i've taken it upon my self to create appropriate templates for the commencements of TGV inOui stations. this is relation to the s-rail-start and s-lines templates that map out a trains route. A good example of one which I've already updated to the new service is Gare d'Auray, Auray station in english. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior—has been proposed for merging with LMS-Patriot Project. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for stations in Europe

Hi folks, I'm working up a proposed naming convention (User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (railway stations in Europe)) to unify the disparate informal conventions that currently exist for naming railway station articles in Europe. This is a clone of the UK and Polish conventions, with some language-specific tweaks. As can be seen from User talk:Mackensen/Naming conventions (railway stations in Europe)#Background there's a great deal of uniformity already, especially with main line stations. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If we have a naming convention for European stations we certainly don't even make a pretence of sticking to it. Compare Antwerpen-Zuid railway station and Brussels-South railway station, the fact that we have Copenhagen Central Station instead of "Københavns Hovedbanegård" but Köln Hauptbahnhof instead of "Cologne Central Station", or the trio of Berlin Alexanderplatz station, Berlin Ostbahnhof, and Berlin-Spandau station each with a different naming format. If we're this inconsistent with major mainline termini in well-documented areas of Western Europe into shape, we have no chance of imposing a unified system onto rural halts in the Balkans. ‑ Iridescent 14:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. Major termini aren't a good example here, because various policies dictate that we shouldn't translate common names that are used in English (see especially all the linked discussions that settled this with "Hauptbahnhof", Central Station isn't the best translation). Regarding Berlin Alexanderplatz station and Berlin-Spandau station, that's how the names are in German, probably because Alexanderplatz is a location in Berlin and Spandau is a suburb. Brussels-South railway station has been subject to long discussions including those at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3. Translation, where the city name differs in English, will always be an edge case, but for the vast majority of articles isn't an issue. From my survey, captured in the table, most articles are consistently named with each other within the given country. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be fine with any convention but in Russia there are quite some stations with a name that is unambiguous, for example Biryulyovo-Tovarnaya would just mean this particular railway station and nothing else. In these case, we at the common name per WP:NAME, and these probably should not be renamed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming of French stations (encore)

Further to WT:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Naming of French stations, Captain scarlet has undone the moves, with a rationale here. Certes (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Captain scarlet is correct. The word "station" is ambiguous. It has a number of meanings, including a broadcaster (radio station, TV station), and a place where you can buy fossil fuel (gas station, petrol station, service station). In my country, Australia, and in New Zealand, it can mean an animal farm or ranch. In military parlance, "on station" refers to an aircraft or ship standing by or in position. Articles about French railway stations should be named "Foo railway station" as per the UK railway station articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Station" has other meanings, which is why I've been adding hatnotes such as this. However, that may not justify moving pages to the "Gare de" prefix. Certes (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Tram-trains in the United Kingdom

A discussion affecting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) has opened up at the associated talk page Shadowssettle(talk) 12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Railway templates

Hi! I've just disambiguated Miranda station, and cleaned up all the links I found to it. However, there are a couple I don't know how to fix, because they use templates I don't understand the mechanics of. See here for the list: Special:WhatLinksHere/Miranda_station

Can anyone who knows more about railway templates help fix this? -- The Anome (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks to The Anome for doing the bulk of the work. Certes (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Certes: Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Norra Hälsinglands Järnväg

I have started Norra Hälsinglands Järnväg, importing and translating the Swedish content, primarily to address the ambiguity of the TLA "NHJ". I'm not a trains person, so anyone who knows how to format such an article, please help. Thanks! BD2412 T 19:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Railways on the Isle of Wight

This article was nominated for GA and has been reviewed (see comments here), but there has been no response by the nominator since it was put on hold on 13 June 2020. The article will fail on 21 June unless the issues I raised are fully addressed. Can anyone help here? if I know someone is willing to pick this up, I'm willing to extend by a week. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Railway lines in Indonesia

A proposal for renaming is at Talk:Duri–Tangerang railway#Requested move 26 June 2020. Comments are invited. (Pinging Amakuru, Cuchullain, Dicklyon, Mackensen, SMcCandlish who who have participated in similar discussions before.). AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RFC, it's a WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Abidjan-Ouagadougou Railway

I just created an article entitled Abidjan-Ouagadougou Railway prompted by the Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics, only to find when I'd finished that a much fuller version already exists here. The title of the existing article is in French, which is inappropriate in an English Wikipedia and can easily lead to this kind of reduplication. Also it is misleading because the word "régie" refers to state control, whereas the railway has been in the private sector for the past 25 years. I therefore recommend that the two articles be merged and the English title retained. Gnangbade (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gnangbade: Abidjan-Ouagadougou Railway doesn't exist; presumably you mean Abidjan-Ouagadougou railway. What is the exact name of the "much fuller version" to which you refer? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. See this discussion: Talk:Abidjan-Ouagadougou_railway Gnangbade (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Régie du Chemin de Fer Abidjan-Niger, then. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitions

Are these correct?

line a section of track between A and B, or a service between two or more destinations
Railway or Railroad (Capitalized) a company involved in rail transport
railway or railroad (lower case) a section of track, or a service
route a service that follows part of, or one, or more lines or railways
network or system a group of routes or services

AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bangkok rapid transit lines

There's an RM discussion over some future Bangkok rapid transit lines at Talk:MRTA Yellow Line#Requested move 1 July 2020. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Donetsk Railway, or Donets Railway

The Donets Railway was at WP:PNTCU until yesterday, when I did some translation cleanup of the running text. This railway is in a part of the Ukraine whose sovereignty is disputed between Russia and Ukraine. I've listed a page move at Talk:Donets_Railway#Requested_move_5_July_2020 to which, I can imagine, editors here may wish to contribute. I've no particular stake either way, there are good arguments on both sides for retaining the existing name or moving it, since the more modern spelling seems to lean towards "Donetsk" but the historical spelling to "Donets".

To keep the discussion in one place, I suggest editors' comments are placed over at RM (the link above), rather than here: I'll cross-ref that to back to here once I've saved this post. 185.62.130.241 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Locomotive hoax edits

I've come across a bunch of unsourced edits to locomotive articles from new accounts with locomotive-based usernames, ranging from extraordinary claims [3] to minor tweaks of infobox data [4]. So far I've found and reverted the following accounts:

PRR 2846 (talk · contribs) PRR H10s 7688 (talk · contribs) PRR L1S 2-10-0 (talk · contribs) PRR E6s 460 (talk · contribs) PRR GG1 4800 (talk · contribs) PRR 4483 (talk · contribs) PRR L1S 2-10-0 (talk · contribs) Erie RR L1 2600 (talk · contribs) PRR E2A 7002 (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure if there's a systematic way to track these down aside from searching for usernames starting with "PRR". Keep your eyes open for random changes from redlinked locos. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As some of those editors have checkuser blocks, the experts at SPI may have good advice. Someone could also keep an eye on Pennsylvania Railroad locomotives. Beware that we have a few good editors called PRRsomething. Certes (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox change

Requesting feedback on a change to Template:Infobox locomotive to aid with a merge of Template:Infobox German railway vehicle. Change will modify the "cylindersize" parameter. I don't really know much about trains, so input is appreciated. Discussion at Template talk:Infobox locomotive.

Also, as a sidenote, help is needed mapping parameters from the German infobox to the English infobox. Since I don't know much about trains, I'm confused on a couple. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell#Transport, help with the remaining params appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the UK ORR station usage data

According to the ORR website, there was an error with the source data which has affected a number of stations, mainly in Wales and the north of England and resulted in an overestimation of usage. Both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 data has been affected so someone (or multiple people) will need to go over all 2000+ stations to check if data is correct. It is hard to tell how many stations were affected or which stations they were so it may be best to unfortunately go over the whole lot. see here. I have started now going through A. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How far out are they, on average? I may take a look at a few myself when I have time, but some obviously wont need changing. Nightfury 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nightfury Please see here for the latest thread to this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Problem with the ORR usage data. Some are relatively low, EG changing Lympstone Commando from 61,456 down to 61,450. Others are quite a large difference, Lye was increased from 95,106 to 101,492 ( an uplift of 6,386). Only about 10% of all stations need adjusting, but it is time consuming. The link at Wikiproject UK Railways has a tick box to fill in when one of us has achieved one of the sections. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"original owners" section in train articles

Many train car articles often have a list under that category; however most of them are sourced to self published fancruft sites and I am questioning if exhibiting contents that could only be sourced from fancruft sites represent WP:DUE coverage of contents. Graywalls (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Something that could only be sourced from unreliable self-published sources would by definition be unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, contained in that statement is the assumption that there are no reliable sources for such information, and I know that's not the case. We shouldn't conflate the present and potential sources for any given article. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sourcing aside, would an extensive customer-list/serial # and VIN specific exhaustive table listing out the ownership of specific serial # of train cars something of use to the general audience? Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Examples please. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Example: EMD_SW1#Original_owners Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Are we talking about the acceptability of locomotive rosters or about the prevalance of "fancruft sites"? I ask because none of the latter are cited in support the roster in your example. As discussed previously, plenty of reliable sources discuss locomotive rosters. If you'd like to open a general discussion on whether locomotive rosters are encyclopedic then fine, but it should be separate from the sourcing question. You're tying together two unrelated issues and it muddles things. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
They can go hand-in-hand. When secondary sources don't pick up on publishing sales ledger like record of ownership of individual serial number, perhaps they're not worthy of reporting. "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." from WP:USESPS. If only trainfanning websites are publishing these data tables obtained from primary sources, such as internal documents, that's a pretty good indication of lack of general interest, thus perhaps not appropriate to create an extensive data table of that nature on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The list on EMD SW1 includes three things: quantity, road numbers, and little bits of trivia about disposition. The first two can certainly be found in reliable sources. The latter is a different matter. When I rewrote Budd Rail Diesel Car I removed the Notes column altogether, regarding it as an attractive nuisance. Regarding however, original owner lists with quantity and road numbers, it's simply incorrect to state that reliable sources don't publish such information. Mackensen (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's split this into two

1.) Whether reliable sources exist or not. If we're talking aircraft, the FAA tail number registry is likely reliable. A WP:SPS fancruft site whose list is made up of his original research from the FAA database, as well as other sources, I would say it isn't, because, it is not reliably published, unless the author satisfies the definition of expert as used in our SPS guidelines. I'm just using aircraft example as I happen to be aware of the reliable registry, but perhaps such thing exists for train cars too.

2.) Order sheet records. Is it within due weight to have a huge data table of order sheet records of which customer bought what vehicles/train cars along with their serial #? I don't think that sort of data table is within the scope of an encyclopedia. Looking in the table for the EMD SW7 I see "Weyerhaueser Timber owns a quantity of 2 train cars, serial numbers 300 and 301, based on railfan research of factory order records and the railfanning website. Boeing_747-400#747-400F for example does not have a list of such. The FAA would have a reliable data of ownership of aircraft and tail number, however, I'd say details like "Delta Airlines, tail #xxxx, xxxx, xxxx and xxxx, quantity 5" "United qty 5, tail numbers xxxx to xxxx" and so forth would be inappropriate by WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Why should we have the most mundane of details in the article? But such things under the heading "original owners" seems to be very common in railroad vehicle articles for some reason.

Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


Absolutely ridiculous to remove roster data from a locomotive article. Graywalls you're continuing this attack on U S history and U S historians. Graywalls you don't have credibility as an American historian and cannot discern real from unreal work. You're work is not PC: Prototypically correct, therefore should not be recognized as an editor of U S prototype railroading. It is common practice in most historical works to use rosters. It would take light years of time to compile all the roster information from historical works, therefore which compiled roster data is best to work from? All the roster data for the SW7 article is in the EMD product data. That primary source roster data is compiled on Don Strack's Utah Rails by locomotive historian A J Kristopans. You have already attacked this as a self published fan site, which it is not. Don Strack has had published in excess of 40 articles and books on locomotive history, his website reflects many of those published articles. You personally attacked Mr. Strack's work, which is pure history. Some of the Wikipedia locomotive rosters are the best general information on the net, the removal of said rosters just dumbs down Wikipedia. The Wikipedia locomotive rosters are not to the level of detail of a Railway & Locomotive Historical Society roster, nor do they need to be. Basic roster information should be As-built/Original Owners, the real question is how to note the originals or just leave that to all those specific interests and clear of Wikipedia. There really needs to be a discussion on what should or should not be noted. --SSW9389 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy hosting of Kristopans page by Utahrails.net does not transfer authoritativeness, just as you you wouldn't treat something posted on stanford .edu/~userpage as a reliable source just because of where it's hosted. "Basic roster information should be As-built/Original Owners" according to who? Would you mind linking a previous discussion on Wikipedia that came to that consensus? The purpose of this discussion is to try to come to a consensus on whether or not it's appropriate to have a huge list of order sheet detailing who bought what. Graywalls (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You might start with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Fleet rosters, but much as the case of the Sherlock Holmes story with the dog that did not bark, the prevalence of such lists--across different topics and countries--speaks to widespread consensus among editors about the inclusion of such information, regardless of a formal discussion. Also, it seems you've misunderstood the point that SSW9389 is making. No one has said that authoritativeness is being "transferred." Rather SSW9389 has asserted that Kristopans is a reputable historian whose work is being hosted on a website run by Don Strack, a recognized expert. These are cognizable assertions. Are they accurate? I don't know, but you need to engage with them. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
There was a brief discussion in RS/N about utahrails.net and there was a limited input suggesting Strack that hosts utahrails.net is probably reliable for Utah related rail stuff. I'm not finding Kristopans published work that has been extensively cited in scholarly work and there seems to be no indication that he is at the level of expert where his stuff is considered acceptable at expert created self published material. Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I believe that Andre Kristopans was a regular contributor to Extra 2200 south, which — before the internet — was the reliable source for railroad locomotive and roster information. I know that all the bus and transit information he has provided that I have been able to verify from manufacturers and transit operators themselves has proved to be accurate. And personally, I feel that your comments here are becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, and I say this as a lifelong rail fan, I think Graywalls is right: these lists are inappropriately detailed for an encyclopedia. Actual and exact road numbers are too much. Detailed disposition if every singe unit built is too much. It's a rail fan's spotters guide, and Wikipedia is not a trainspotters guidebook. The fact that it's sourced to marginal sources that draw questions of reliability only makes it more obvious that it's too obscure, Tom specialized, and too much out of scope for an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree that engine rosters are an excessive level of detail for a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia should provide an overview of the topic and refer readers to specialist publications for more in-depth coverage; this is what the "further reading" section is for.
These tables also suffer from bad citation practices. Looking at EMD SW1, I would have no idea what "EMD Product Reference Data Card dated January 1, 1959 has the 567AC engine data used in the as-built roster" meant if I hadn't read this discussion. Since there are no inline citations, there's no way to sort out which information is actually sourced to the data card and what was added later from a different source without combing through the edit history. If the tables are kept, inline citations need to be used. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Model Railroad clubs & historical society's in West Virginia

Hi, The are many Model railroad clubs and Historical Society's in West Virginia. None are listed on your page. Here are some.

Mon Valley Railroad Historical Society, Inc. Morgantown, WV www.MVRRC.org and www.facebook.com/MVRRHS

Clarksburg Area Model Railroad Club Clacksburg, WV https://www.facebook.com/camr.club/

Mid Ohio Valley Model Railroad Club, Parkersburg, WV http://www.movmrc.org/

Kanawha Valley Railroad Association, Charleston, WV http://www.kvrailroad.org/

Sincerely, Richard Henderson Membership Director Mon Valley Railroad Historical Society, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6035:1A:DD57:5BBC:4C7E:6F4E (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Richard, Wikipedia is a global scale encyclopedia; not a directory. Businesses and organizations that are only notable enough to meet the notability guidelines should be created. Most local organizations are run of the mill and are not sufficiently notable enough to be included. Graywalls (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Individual Passenger Train Articles

This issue is related currently to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways, but may or may not be expanded for this project (globally) also. I have already asked on WikiProject Indian railways at here, but asking here for more inputs.

I have a doubt regarding inclusion of individual articles on normal passenger trains (which are ~ 15,000 in India). For example articles like Indore–Ajmer_Link_Express, Rajendra_Nagar_Patna–Indore_Express. These both examples are completely normal trains, which clear fails WP:GNG and their is no other subject specific guidelines for trains (that I am able to find). Most of these articles (that I have gone through) are unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. I believe that these articles should not be included on English Wikipedia, this may also be a case of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Can someone provide their views about it and what is the general consensus regarding it ? Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say if they fail GFNG GNG they should not have separate articles. Lists may be in order if someone is willing to maintain them up-to-date--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, Assuming GFNG is a typo, you are saying that the notability of the individual/separate articles should be solely based on WP:GNG ? Zoodino (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also encourage more editors (especially members of the project) to participate in the discussion and share their views on the notability assessment of the articles. Zoodino (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of specialized notability criteria, yes, in principle we have to look at WP:GNG. I do not think we have presumed notability for individual trains.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Soure train crash

I've started an article on the collision and derailment of a high-speed passenger train at Soure, Portugal. Portuguese speaking members of this WP may be able to expand it from the GPIAAF source used in the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Montour Railroad

So, I have a long-term interest in the Montour. The article is kinda bad, but using Google Books and montourrr.com (which was mostly made by a former employee) it could become massive, particulary the wesbsite's contents. Would anyone else be interested in improving the article? --BlueCrabRedCrab 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a railfanning site and the use of latter source would be unacceptable for the most part to be in line with proper sourcing and verifiability requirements. Graywalls (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Consolidating some of articles, such as EMD MP15AC/MP15DC, GP15AC/GP15DC

Do each variant of train cars really need its own article? They already have a tendency to accumulate information clutter that's poorly sourced and are of interest to railfans only and I think it would be better if we can merge them. https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Diesel_Locomotives/bVEhihy7tKEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=MP15AC+DC+reliability&pg=PA142&printsec=frontcover This soruce talks about it only as a variantion. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • There's a lot going on here. First of all, we don't have an article on an EMG GP15DC; I don't believe there's any such animal. I think EMD GP15AC could reasonably be merged into EMD GP15-1, inasmuch as the only difference (apparently) is the traction motors. That's not insignificant but see GE Evolution Series for an example of handling both in the same article (though that article is getting long). Variants are often covered within articles. The case for the EMD MP15AC and EMD MP15DC is less clear. Different traction motors, different trucks, possibly other differences. One's not really a variant of the other; it's more a case of EMD offering both types of traction for differently-minded railroads. I think a reasonable case could be made for a merge. I don't see this as a project-wide question, really, articles can be combined and split depending on any number of factors (are there enough sources, do sources treat them as a single topic, is the article too short otherwise, is the article so long as to justify a split). Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2020: Mexico rapid transit RMs

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. As there are lots of page moves involved, this will take some time. I will ping the involved editors once I am done, to re-check if some of the titles are left out from the moving. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


– See full list of stations (around 200) and rationale below © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 23:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As a background, this pandemic I've been editing and updating Mexico City's stations. I've been wanting to do it for a while and now I had the chance. I thought leaving the titles to whenever I finish, but I think it would be better to discuss them now, all because of Buenavista station. We have Buenavista station (railway station), Metro Buenavista (metro station), Mexibús Buenavista (a bus station in the State of Mexico), Metrobús Buenavista (Line 1), Metrobús Buenavista (Line 3) and Metrobús Buenavista (Line 4) (interchange bus stations in Mexico City), and eventually Cablebús Buenavista and Buenavista train station (Santa María Petapa) (Mayan Train) will exist in southern Mexico City and Oaxaca, respectively (all but the first 2 are redirects though). So I was thinking that as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) is defunct, and there are no conventions for Mexican stations like those of Oceania, Poland, UK and the US, to standardize all of them. In all cases, I apply the standardization of "X station" without the sometimes unnecessary "(System Disambiguation)", except when it is required.

I add supplementary information respecting the following systems. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

a) Mexico City Metro

Articles

– See below © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said I've been working on these. I have found English sources calling them "X metro station",[5][6][7][8] or simply "X station"[9][10]. However, as station names in Mexico tend to be repeated (like with Buenavista, we have Metrobús La Raza (Line 1), Metrobús La Raza (Line 3) La Raza (Mexico City trolleybus system); Metro Juárez and Juárez railway station, etc.); I propose adding "metro" to distinguish them from other types of stations. Also note these articles have been named "Metro X" since 2004/5, because that's the colloquial name we use here in Mexico for all the metro stations ([11][12][13][14], etc.) However, I think it can create confusion for English speakers like it was said in this page move diff, or with the word "Metropolitan" like in Metro Manila in the Philippines, or Metro Sevilla and Seville Metro, or the fact that Bellas Artes metro station and Metro Bellas Artes are co-existing. Also, I must say that I am opposed to "X (Mexico City Metro)" because I find that disambiguation unhelpful in cases like Ferrería/Arena Ciudad de México (Mexico City Metro) (Ferrería is an avenue and Arena Ciudad de México is located like 500 meters away from Ferrería) or Viveros / Derechos Humanos (Mexico City Metro) (Viveros de Coyoacán is a city park and the National Human Rights Commission (Mexico) headquarters are two different things that cannot be confused). These titles are as helpful as the now deprecated "Broadway–Lafayette Street/Bleecker Street (New York City Subway)" or "Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place/Cortlandt Street (New York City Subway)". © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

b) Tren Suburbano (Mexico City)

Articles

– See below © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above Buenavista station is too ambiguous. For mere consistency, I propose moving all of them to "railway" as in Category:Railway stations in Manchester rather than by system. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

c) Monterrey

Articles

– See below © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Monterrey Metro" title is (I assume) based on the "Mexico City Metro" name. However, the official[15] and common name is "Metrorrey"[16]. For the stations, I suggest "X metro station" instead of "X (Metrorrey)" for mere consistency with Mexico City's stations. I suggest "X metro station (Metrorrey)" for ambiguous stations, but "X metro station (Monterrey)" can work as well. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"X metro station" would seem to be sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

d) Other stations

The following stations are "affected" one way or another by these new titles:

--© Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

By way of background, articles used to be named using preemptive parenthetical disambiguation, for example Foo (System). That's what you're encountering, and we need to get away from it. As I understand it this is the proposed convention:

  • X railway station for mainline heavy rail stations
  • X metro station for subway stations
  • Parenthetical disambiguation as needed

That's a reasonable standard and what's done for most European articles, and I think it makes sense. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAR notification for Singapore MRT

I have nominated Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Highest railways in the world

I think this list (List of highest railways) deserves more attention than it currently has. It has currently a very low standard for inclusion (2000 m) and probably neglects hundreds of railway lines (amusingly the Mexico City Metro discussed above is the perfect example). Unfortunately, findind reliable sources of information on the topic is hard and finding the railways on the maps (like I did for List of highest railways in Europe) is just not possible on a world scale. Any kind of help or suggestion will be "highly" appreciated, please see Talk:List of highest railways#Height cut-off and value of this list. Zach (Talk) 10:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean up project

Could someone help clean up Faenza railway station#Train services and Molfetta railway station#Train services? thank you! Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Moscow suburban railway lines

The suburban rail traffic from Moscow is organized in suburban lines, or directions, which, as fas as I know, do not have established English names. There are 11 of them, and I already created 10 and will later on create one more. For whatever reason, this year there were a lot of activity moving these articles. For example, if we take Yaroslavsky suburban railway line, I created it in 2016 as Yaroslavsky suburban direction of Moscow Railway, and nobody cared about the name, before on 11 June it was moved to Yaroslavsky suburban railway line, Moscow. I went to Leutha's talk page to discuss, and they convinced me that the move was good. As a non-native English speaker, I obviously defer to the speakers' opinions in language matters. Fine. I moved the other 10, fixed the internal links, and thought we are done. Then somebody filed a RM, which I can not even find now because there are too many talk pages, and the RM was only about one article, not about all of them. I objected, nobody else cared, and RM was closed as no consensus. Then on 1 August AJP426 moved it to Yaroslavsky suburban railway line saying that disambiguation is not needed. I decided not to object and fixed some internal links. Now, today Александр Мотин moved it to Yaroslavskaya line citing this news site as a reason. I reverted this, since the move was undiscussed, and generally we should not move articles just because one news instance in English. However, I need to ask this project to help choosing the stable name, after which everything else would have to go through requested moves. I feel that three moves and one RM in a year for such articles is too much. I will be happy to provide additional info if needed. I do not care so much about the name, and will deter to the opinions of knowledgeable native speakers, but I do care about stability. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

And now they sdttarted a RM at Talk:Savyolovsky suburban railway line (and this of course again just for one article, not for all of them as it would be appropriate).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I advised them to move RM here and include other articles as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a RM by AlgaeGraphix which was closed on 9 July as no consensus. They proposed Rizhsky suburban line--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
To prevent arxivatio, I am still around and will react--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NYC & HH RR?

I admit it. I'm a geek. I read manhole covers. The other day, I was in Kingsbridge Heights and saw two manhole covers that said "N Y C & H H R R". I'm not actually sure they said that; those were the letters, but they were in a circle around the rim so it's hard to tell where you were supposed to start. I'm kicking myself now for not taking a photo. I'm guessing "New York City and something something Rail Road". The H's could be some combination of Harlem, Hudson, Heights, Highbridge, etc. This was a few blocks west of where I think the old New York and Putnam Railroad tracks ran. Anybody know anything about this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, if it was N Y C & H R R R (three Rs, 1 H) then I'd say New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, predecessor of the New York Central. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Beat me to it by 5 minutes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Mackensen, Hmmm. That's certainly possible. Next time I'm in the area, I'll try to find it again and take a photo. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Holy panopticon, Batman! It's on Google Street View!. Yeah, HRRR, not HHRR. I guess the next question is, what would a railroad be doing with their own manhole covers? Underground power lines, I guess? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
List of New York City manhole cover abbreviations MB 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Telephone or telegraph lines, more likely. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't discount power lines, what with the Hudson Libe being electrified and all. oknazevad (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith - nothing wrong with your interest, Jeremy Corbyn shares it. If you do take any photos, please upload them to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots, As an American, I've lost track of whether Labour are the good guys or the bad guys, but either way, it feels good to have some association with British politics. Takes my mind off what's happening on our side of the pond. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith that depends on your point of view. We have the Labour Party (UK) article to help you decide. As for what's happening in the USA, as a Brit it's none of my business and as such I have no opinion. Anyway, we're digressing... Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots, I happened to be back in that area today, so here it is. I gotta say, I felt pretty silly standing in the middle of the street taking a picture of a manhole cover. The small object barely visible in the lower-right is the tip of the photographer's right big toe. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Very cool! That dates to sometime between 1869 and 1914. And you're hardly the only photographer here who's looked at manhole covers - I've photographed a few myself. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

KRL Prajayana

Someone created this article on top of a radio station article (a history split was required), but it's in bad shape and I do not have the knowledge of trains or Indonesia to improve it. I was able to find an image. Could someone more familiar with the topic area assist? Raymie (t • c) 17:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Alstom Coradia accident in Germany

A brand new Alstom Coradia train has been involved in an accident whilst being delivered from Poland to the Netherlands. Can we find a useable source for this please so that it can be added to the article? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The train was travelling eastwards (presumably from Beddingen to Blankenburg). A good source I could find is from MDR (in German). I think the incident should be added to the article NS Intercity Nieuwe Generatie, Alstom Coradia is more of an overview.--PhiH (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, Looks like the end of a double track section there. Possible SPAD and trap points? I managed to find another source, and have added the accident to both articles. What is the class of locomotive that was hauling the ICNG unit? Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a trap point, yes. This is the location.--PhiH (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Forum gossip is that it was a Class 214 locomotive involved. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It was 1214 006, confirmed by this article: eisenbahn-kurier.de --PhiH (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with Nuremberg U-Bahn

Hi.

On October 15 2020 the new Nuremberg U-Bahn station Großreuth (Nuremberg U-Bahn) opened. Unfortunately the template still displays the terminus of the line as being "Gustav Adolf Straße" which produces the odd result of "Kleinreuth" somehow being the next stop from Großreuth direction "Gustav Adolf Straße" while Gustav Adolf Straße is the next stop direction Nordwestring. Can one of you fine people please update the template accordingly? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done in article and template. The article edit will need to be reverted, and other changes made, when Kleinreuth opens. Certes (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That might take another five years, but yes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Howrah (Junction)

Following the recent move from Howrah railway station to Howrah Junction railway station (which I have requested reversion prior to discussion concensus) people may care to examine the case for the appropriate primary name of this article. There is some prior discussion on the talk page of the article, and there has also been some editing to make "junction" more prevalent. People are welcome to have a look, and to consider the definition of "junction"!. This might get heated, but given the different views a discussion may be useful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bescot (United Kingdom)

There is long standing (since 2007!) question about the location of the Grand Junction Railway's 1837 Bescot Bridge (later Wood Green) station, and its relation to the similarly named Bescot (now Bescot Stadium), for which we have no opening date, on the talk page of the latter. Does anyone have sources that will resolve it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This may help, Bradshaw (1839) lists the mileages as Walsall 9½ (Bradshaw called it Walsall, others didn't), James's Bridge 10¼, Webster (1972) mentions that James's Bridge is less than a mile from Bescott Bridge and the Quail trackmap shows Bescot Stadium at 8.43 miles from Curzon Street, Bescot curve at 9 miles and James's Bridge junction at 10.01 I would suggest that is sufficient evidence to state that Bescot Bridge and Wood Green were on the same site. Quick sees it that way as well, and his notes for Bescot show that Bescot bridge and bescot junction were two different stations.
References
  • Bradshaw, George (25 October 1839). Bradshaw's Railway Time Tables and assistant to railway Travelling with illustrative maps & plans. London: Shepherd and Sutton, and Wyld.
  • Webster, Norman W. (1972). Britain's First Trunk Line:The Grand Junction Railway. Adams & Dart. p. 77. SBN 239 00105 2.
  • Jacobs, Gerald, ed. (2005). Railway Track Diagrams Book 4:Midlands & North West. Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. p. 19. ISBN 0 9549866 0 1.
  • Quick, Michael (2022) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology (PDF). version 5.04. Railway & Canal Historical Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2022.
I'll edit the article unless there are more comments, shouldn't the article also be moved to the name it was last known by Wood Green Old Bescot with appropriate redirects?
 Done Nempnet (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Nempnet, Pigsonthewing; sorry I am late; this cite will show exactly where the station was located. Using the blue circle on the Change transparency of the overlay (left), allows a modern day overlay to become apparent showing the station was inbetween the roads on the south side of the interchange roundabout.[1] Don't know if it helps! Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Explore georeferenced maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland". maps.nls.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.

3rd rail speed record

I'm trying to find a reliable source for the claim at Third rail#Safety and Railway speed record#All passenger trains that "The world speed record for a third rail train is 174 (108 mph) km/h attained on 11 April 1988 by a British Class 442 EMU.". I have found it [on page 104 of this pdf http://static.scbist.com/scb/uploaded/331_frey_s_railway_electrification_systems_engineering.pdf], however that document dates from 2012 and the whole paragraph is an exact match for one that has been in our third rail article since 2009 so using that would be citogensis. The claim in our article originated with this anonymous edit in November 2007]. The SquareWheels website page at [25], updated in September 2007 but present in 2006 also [26] claims 109 mph set by a 442 on 11 April 1988. However I don't know how reliable it is. The 1 mph difference in speed given (our 108 mph is calculated from a km/h figure and so likely just a rounding difference) suggests it shares a common origin with our article rather than being a direct source.

Complicated things is this 2016 forum post, quoting an earlier (but unavailable to me) newsgroup posting,[27] claiming an unofficial(?) record of 117 mph at Staplehurst "in the build up to the Eurostar build." so probably circa 1990. I've not been able to find the provenance of that or any reliable confirmation of it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the National Railway Bulletin, published by the National Railway Historical Society, appears to substantiate the claim in a 1988 issue: [28]. I can't view the whole document, unfortunately. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
That is a useful find, thank you. If we can't find anything better, that snippet view will probably be enough to cite it. The Internet Archive has copies of other editions of the relevant publication (National Railway Bulletin", but not the one required (Volume 53, probably number 1 but possibly number 2). Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure of 2019 station layout RFC

I have noticed a few people removing station layouts per this 2019 RFC. While I'm not opposed to the removal of layouts for minor stations, I looked at the RFC and the closing statement contradicts the option favored by most RFC participants.

The editor who closed the RFC, Mgasparin, wrote in the closing statement that: So, it appears that the general consensus here is that station maps should be removed in their entirety per NOTGUIDE. This is not supported by even a head-count of !votes. There are only four !votes which agreed with complete removal, three of which were the first !votes to be cast in the RFC. Eight other !votes clearly expressed a preference for "No general policy". By head count alone, the consensus should have been "No general policy". And, reading the comments, those who !voted for "No general policy" advocated for the removal of many station layouts, except if they were unusual enough or covered by reliable sources. I'm bringing this up only because I'm seeing people citing this RFC as a reason for removal. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Davey2010 and Terramorphous, the editors in question who are removing the layouts, and Kew Gardens 613, who brought my attention to this possibly discrepancy on his talk page. I'm pinging Ymblanter as well, since he replied to the thread on Kew Gardens 613's talk page. I think it may be worth holding another discussion to clarify whether the outcome of the RFC was properly assessed. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I see no issue with that RFC nor it's closure. Consensus was to remove these unless supported by sources etc which none of these are. By now I've removed these from a good 500-800 articles as well as had 3-4 templates deleted. Consensus was to remove these period, I certainly don't believe we should start another RFC because a few disagree with the consensus from the last one. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010, that is fair. I'm not opposed to removing completely unsourced layouts, but I do think we should keep the prose portion if possible, tagging with {{cn}} as necessary. epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The prose sections are all being kept, I'm simply removing the tables underneath these, The prose whilst unsourced is still useful and IMHO should under no circumstance be removed. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI I'm currently reinstating prose that has inadvertently been removed with the tables in a tiny few articles, Currently going through contribs so it'll take some time, Like I said above prose should stay whether it's sourced or not. –Davey2010Talk 19:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010Epicgenius Yeah I spoke with Davey about the close when I did it and he had no problem with it at the time. Honestly, I can barely even remember it now but if it was good then I'm sure it's still good. Mgasparin (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have become agnostic on the issue, if we are decide to remove all the platform layout tables or whatever, that's fine; I'll even help. However, let's please adhere to the decision consistently across all pages and systems regardless of what it is and clearly define what is a "major station" that warrants leaving the layouts as is. Terramorphous (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If I'm reading the RFC correctly, the consensus was to delete the tables where the layout was relatively simple, e.g. a platform and two tracks. On the other hand, there wasn't consensus for deleting tables for stations that served as transfer stations, or where the layout was more complex. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I read it as the diagram being removed from ALL articles irrespective of what the station is, Platform tables would be fine tho. –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Epicgenius's interpretation (delete simple layouts, keep complex ones) which is also consistent with past discussions at this project. As a good rule of thumb: anything with 1-2 tracks, or 3-4 tracks with 2 side platforms, is simple enough to replace with a single sentence. Anything more than that would probably be well-served with a layout. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Then you read it wrong; Epicgenius has interpreted it correctly.AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Well given we all seem to have different interpretations of it maybe another RFC would be best, Certainly don't agree with it but it is what it is. –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a fresh RFC with actual options would be best and I volunteer to help draft one. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mackensen, I agree. I think a clarifying RFC would be helpful. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Preparing for an RFC

I want to start by clarifying a few things from above. I don't think there's any disagreement that station layouts, as described in prose, should be included with an appropriate level of detail. What does need discussing is when tables or templates depicting these layouts are appropriate. First, I think when we talk about layouts and diagrams we're talking about two different things:

  1. Platform layouts: the HTML table-based platform layouts found in the main body of articles. Example: Bound Brook station#Station layout.
  2. Track layouts: the Routemap/BS-based track layouts found either in the main body of articles or sometimes included within the station infobox. Example of the former: Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)#Station layout. Example of the latter: Dempster–Skokie station.

Beyond that, some station articles have lists of station exits. There's no uniform style for these but see Bakchon station#Exits for an example. Anything else? Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not so sure about the prose for the station layouts. If it referenced, yes (and I am willing to make concessions on which sources are reliable here). If it is not referenced, we probably need to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we should clarify that station layouts and lists of station exits are distinct from prose talking about station designs and exits. Prose descriptions, such as in 72nd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)#Exits, should stay, though the extent should depend on how reliably sourced it is, as with all other articles. If something's referenced only by an unreliable source, or not referenced at all, it could be removed as in all other pages. epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe the whole issue started from Beijing Subway stations like this one which are not sourced at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, these probably need to be removed completely. Perhaps the layouts and exit tables in such articles can be replaced with a sentence or two of prose, although these would also need reliable sources. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it needs to start from a position of having reliable sources; prose or graphic doesn't matter. For example, in the examples at the top of this section, I would be in favor of removing absolutely every single one of them except probably the very first paragraph in Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)#Station layout. The default position should be to have no station/track layouts in my opinion, unless adequately sourced. Otherwise it begs the addition of of original research; it's pretty much the epitome, as far as I can see, of the sort of topic that attracts well-meaning but inappropriate fancruft. I personally despise the {{routemap}} based diagrams; they almost invariably do an end-run around policy by including a level of detail and a deficit of references that would have an equivalent paragraph of prose deleted in a heartbeat for running afoul of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOTDIR. I don't know how you would word that in an RfC though. Perhaps "Descriptions and/or diagrams of station layouts are discouraged, unless the subject has unusual historic or operational characteristics that have been noted in reliable sources" or somesuch. I would endorse that wording anyway. Everything with two tracks and two side platforms and the like, that's just garbage though, save it for the travel guides. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources, I think for basic claims like the platform layout it shouldn't be a too high of a priority, it usually is verifiable through pictures of the station or satellite images, and if we really needed an inline source an WP:ABOUTSELF generally exists and is sufficient. For the examples given at the top, I generally agree they could be removed, as long it's replaced with sufficient prose, except for more complicated layouts like Springfield station, but it still needs a good cleanup (take out the track layout outside the station, and cleanup the prose). I wouldn't agree of having nothing at all regarding station layout, as it reduces reader understanding especially for those hard of sight, since they can't look at the station picture to understand how it looks. Jumpytoo Talk 00:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I personally despise the {{routemap}} based diagrams; they almost invariably do an end-run around policy by including a level of detail and a deficit of references that would have an equivalent paragraph of prose deleted in a heartbeat for running afoul of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOTDIR. - With all due respect, I do not think preference for which type of map to use should be relevant for such an RFC. This RFC needs to be relatively narrow in scope, and I agree that information should be backed up by reliable sources per WP:V/WP:OR. However, it really shouldn't go beyond the issue of whether such layouts are appropriate. epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. It's my impression that there are really three questions (platforms, tracks, and exits) and that everyone's opinion varies between the three. I've read over WP:RFC and I think the best course of action would be separate RfCs, either running together or one after the other. Each would propose a single question, such as "Should HTML table-based platform layouts be included in station articles?" Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mackensen, Epicgenius, The Wicked Twisted Road, Jumpytoo, Just wondering - Given I've removed many track layouts/exits from articles would these need to be reverted?, Also to my knowledge I've now had 3 track layout templates deleted too,
FYI here's a list going back to May (however pre-2020 I believe I used different edit summaries as never did an RFC first. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010, well, the purpose of the RfC is to formally document the consensus around adding/removing layouts. If you're not being reverted that suggests the likely outcome of the RfC. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah okay thanks. –Davey2010Talk 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: platform layouts

Should articles about railway stations include HTML table-formatted platform layouts (example: Bound Brook station#Station layout)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No in most cases: The majority of stations are simple layouts with 1 track / 1 platform, 2 tracks / 2 side platforms, 2 tracks / 1 island platform, or 4 tracks / 2 side platforms. For these, the station layout can be expressed in prose without any confusion to the reader, and a table-formatted layout is not useful. For a small number of complex stations - particularly those with multiple service patterns - a table-formatted layout can be useful. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station is a great example of a table and an RDT being used to display complex service patterns and a complex track/platform layout. These platform layouts should be removed from articles by default; they can be kept or added on a case-by-case basis for complex stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Only if difficult to explain in prose: Most cases can be described in prose + a picture of the station, but for the complicated cases (I'd say a rule of thumb is at least 4 tracks and/or 2 platforms), when there's something unusual, or when the service pattern is complicated a table would be helpful. However, we shouldn't be removing existing platform layouts unless the editor writes sufficient replacement prose, they aren't that harmful compared to other issues. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No, never: I've come to view these as a real problem. They're difficult for editors to maintain; they're never cited to sources, reliable or otherwise; and they pose multiple challenges on the accessibility front (use of colors, presentation of data in a tabular format without fallback). Discussing which services use which platforms is a level of detail that we shouldn't provide, even in prose. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No in most cases. Such layouts are usually not needed to describe articles where there's a single platform and 1-2 tracks, or two platforms and 2-4 tracks. The inclusion of such layouts in minor stations might result in an outcome that falls afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE, since they usually don't help readers' understanding of the article. However, they're useful in depicting complex stations visually. Regarding the concern of route details - in the majority of articles with station layouts, the service pattern is relatively fixed, so maintenance is not a big problem. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Mackensen: Does this extend to the work of platform-less tables on station layouts such as Tokyo Station? Cards84664 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally No. Especially if it is a simple 2 to 4 track/platform layout. For complex stations maybe a Route diagram template is better. Terramorphous (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally no, especially if easily described in prose and/or an image caption/alt text. In cases where it is difficult to describe in prose, then in at least most cases an RDT-style diagram is better than the the table layout. This includes the examples at Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station#Station layout where the addition of line/service names to the RDT would make the table redundant. See for example Stratford station#High level platforms for something that would be nearly impossible to render in the table format. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: track layouts

Should articles about railway stations include route diagram template-based track layouts (example: Dempster–Skokie station)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No in most cases: As with platform layouts, most stations (like Dempster-Skokie) are simple enough that such a track layout is not needed. For some stations with complex track layouts (that are discussed and reliably cited in the prose), a track layout RDT may be useful. Examples of the latter type are Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station (a major junction) and New London Union Station (where different sections of platforms are arranged around a level crossing). As with platform layouts, the default should be to remove; they can be kept or added on a case-by-case basis where they are useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No unless notable or to show platform layouts: Station articles should be focused on the station, not the surrounding track layout. But, if there is RS notability or the platform layout is so unusual it can't be depicted in prose/HTML table, then track layouts could be used to improve understanding. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes (where notable): Unlike platform layouts, track layouts provide useful information the about railway operations and capacity. This does not refer to very basic layouts that aren't notable such as the example shown above. Separate SVGs instead of RDTs would be better though but are of course harder to create.--PhiH (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No in most cases: I agree with Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) that these are a useful supplement to the prose in cases where the track layout is complicated or unusual. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, where notable. For simple track layouts without any major junctions, I'd remove these completely. However, I do think we should retain complex track layouts, even those with interlockings, if they are important to the subject of the article itself and are referenced in prose. In many cases, the interlockings are directly related to the stations to which they are adjacent, although this is not always true. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes when Notable: A picture is worth a thousand words. Terramorphous (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In some cases. Where the layout simple they aren't needed, but where the layout is particularly notable and/or complex then they can really add to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: exits

Should articles about railway stations include tables or lists of entrances and exits (example: Wudaokou station)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No tables; lists okay in cited prose: Tables like those on Wudakou add nothing of value to the article, yet take up a great deal of space. Listing all the destinations around an exit also violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Discussion of station entrances/exits as part of the physical station design (rather than acting as a travel guide) in cited prose, however, is a good thing. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station is again a good example; Hynes Convention Center station is another case where discussion of the entrances/exits serves to inform the reader about the station design rather than to serve as a travel guide. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Prose only: Tables of exits have poor usefulness and is makes the article a travel guide. Brief prose for smaller stations ("The station has four exists around an intersection", "The exits are at the south end of the platform"), and more elaborate prose when possible & citable (ex. history) should be preferred. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; lists okay in cited prose: I agree completely with what Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) wrote. A prose discussion is fine and should be subject to the usual editorial process. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; prose okay. I also agree with Pi.1415926535. Sourced paragraphs talking about station entrances and exits as a part of the station design are just a part of describing the station itself. These don't necessarily violate WP:NOTGUIDE like the tables do. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; lists sparingly; prose okay. Per epicgenius sourced prose is fine in most cases. Lists should be used sparingly and only when they add significantly to the prose. Tables take up a lot of space while adding no significant encyclopaedic value. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

De Akkers metro station crash

It has been proposed that the De Akkers metro station crash article is merged into the De Akkers metro station article. Discussion at talk:De Akkers metro station. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

UK station edits

Please can someone take a look at recent edits by 88.97.111.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I don't understand their purpose and they may not be helpful. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help finding RS for 2 gauge model track

Rail transport modelling task force is inactive, so pinging this larger group for assistance with a query I posted there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

One-person operation

I've just gone through and changed the One-person operation article (formerly at One-man operation) to use gender neutral language where possible and appropriate (I think I got it all, but double checking would be good). However the article as a whole is in a dreadful state with very poor writing, out-of-date sections (some five years out of date), and woefully under-referenced. If anyone is looking for an article to improve then this one would certainly benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

These search results show about 14 articles with redlinks to S-line templates. I figured that someone here might be able to fix them more adeptly than I would. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done with the rest. Cards84664 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Grand Canyon Railway locomotives and editing them

I recently finished writing about all the steam locomotives that ever operated under Grand Canyon Railway ownership. Now, I'm trying to decide whether write about engine No. 539 or not. Also, if any one of you guys ever find any additional information about the GCRY roster, plus more specifications, adding them to Grand Canyon Railway 29, Grand Canyon Railway 4960, Lake Superior and Ishpeming 18, or even make a new article about any of the railway's other past locomotives, or at least let me know what needs to be done, that would be highly appreciated, either way. Thank you! User:Someone who likes train writing 08:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

California station edits

An IP editor has made several intricate edits to California station route boxes. Please can an expert confirm or revert them? Some such as Bayshore station (Caltrain) are not exactly right (Former services now links to a dab) but I'm unsure whether to tweak or to revert wholesale. It's probably a regular, as their first contributions were plausible changes to module documentation. Certes (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked them as they did them (and just fixed Bayshore now). They were largely correct, with just a few tweaks needed. Can't say I'm sure who it was a sock of. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Pi! It's clearly someone who knows their way around Wikipedia but I'm not suggesting sockpuppetry; they probably just forgot they were logged out. Certes (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of photos

I've found a couple of Montour Railroad photos, they are all either out of copyright, or they were published without a notice. I have the links for them. Montour 26 (a Mikado steam engine) Another Montour Mikado, #25. Another photo of 25. I'm wondering if anyone could upload them to commons as they are PD. Thanks, --108.17.71.32 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Nickel Plate Road 190

Months ago, I re-directed that article into ALCO PA, because that single train car fails to establish WP:SIGCOV to merit its own article. IP editor complained that it was undiscussed. I re-directed it rather than AfDing it per WP:ATD-R. In this kind of case, which form of discussion be opened? If I opened an AfD, I can predict the result would be merge and redirect. Graywalls (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls deleting info

It seems Graywalls is on a crusade against fancruft but some of it is valid information such as the utah rails refrences he removes than puts citation needed and deletes. Well some of it is trivia and should be deleted so maybe we can help graywalls understand the locomotives better and not delete stuff execpt for stuff that needs deleted --108.17.71.32 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Utah Rails has previously been discussed in the reliable sources noticeboard and so far the loose conclusion on that is that this website maybe considered reliable for things related to rail in Utah. Reliability for self published materials is determined by the author being considered as experts in the field by formally published materials, not by fans. There is also such thing as too much information. If the information is only covered in railfanning websites, I would consider that excess information of interest to only a narrow range of people and not suitable for encyclopedia. I'll ping @Mackensen: here as he's quite involved in this project. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there specific examples we can look at? Graywalls and I tend to agree that there's too much fancruft, though we draw the line differently and have differed on source reliability. An abstract discussion won't get us very far. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Route diagram templates

Once again it's being proposed that they be subst'd into their parent articles. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 24#Template:Munich–Holzkirchen railway. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Station ridership: boarding and alighting

As I've been creating railway station articles, I've been using this dataset published by MLIT, a Japanese government agency. It gives the number of passengers getting on and off at most (if no all) stations in Japan. However, I've come across another dataset published by JR East (one of Japan's many rail operators), which gives the number of passengers that are boarding only. Take Shin-Urayasu Station for example: the JR East data for 2016 gives 55,729 passengers, which is cited in the article. Meanwhile, the MLIT dataset gives 109,912 passengers for the same year, which is roughly double of JR East's. I've found that there's a mix; some articles are reporting both boarding and alighting, while others are reporting just boarding. I've even found articles that have taken MLIT's numbers and just divided it by two. So, in the infobox of the articles, which number do we report?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganbaruby (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2020&oldid=1087011825"